Save the Confluence was organized as a response by Navajos who had been exiled from their land for nearly 50 years under The Bennett Freeze, and who now are threatened by a proposal called the “Grand Canyon Escalade.” Many residents believe this proposal is the wrong kind of economic development near The Confluence.

(The Bennett Freeze prohibited development in this arid stretch. It was lifted in 2009 by U.S. President Barack Obama. People who grew up under the freeze have been working hard to move back home. But, now, Navajo Nation officials — including President Ben Shelly– want to wrestle the land back away from the people.)

Reasons why The Escalade is being opposed are numerous. But, some of the main reasons are the following:

The fragile ecosystem of the so-called East Rim is at stake. The tribe is proposing multimillion-dollar tourism development that would bring tens of thousands of visitors to the eastern edge of the Grand Canyon. Both the National Parks Service and the Federal Aviation Administration recognize the unique cultural characteristics and unique environment of this region. Both agencies have imposed restrictions on aircraft and travel. Many of the protections would be undone by the type of tourism promoted by The Escalade.

Strong-arm tactics of both the developers and the Navajo Nation government have threatened the lifestyle of current residents and of those seeking to repatriate the land on which they were born and raised. The Navajo Nation has stated that if the people oppose their plans for major tourism development, then the tribe might seek to evict opponents from their homes. These are people who have lived under Third World conditions here due to the Bennett Freeze. When the freeze was lifted, no one from the tribe came out to offer to help the people rebuild.

The backgrounds of the businessmen involved in The Escalade have raised concern of many area residents: One of the developers narrowly escaped charges involved with efforts to develop a professional sports stadium in Phoenix; another is a former Superior Court judge who resigned before he could be charged criminally, and another is a former Navajo Nation President who left office amid an extramarital scandal and questions about financial improprieties. These developers have used bullying tactics, which have included harassing phone calls and emails, as well as convincing local tribal leaders to forcibly overturn two resolutions opposing the project.
None of the money expected to be gained from the tribe’s massive venture is earmarked to help residents rebuild their homeland or to preserve the land.
—-

About this website: This website was organized by some of the original families who have maintained homes near The Confluence since at least the early 1800s, and who have homesite leases and grazing permits that would be affected by the current proposed development. Since the website started in 2010, its supporters have grown to number several thousand individuals on a grassroots level.

We encourage you to click the “People” link in the navigation on every page to see glimpses of some of the people who would be affected by a tourism development project at The Confluence.

This is already a protected area in which there are many ways to enjoy for the near 5 million persons a year who visit. I used to believe the way to protect wild places was to get people into them but no longer subscribe to this tenant.

The thought of some fat, ugly American reading Rock & Ice magazine while taking a gondola to the bottom of the Grand Canyon sickens me a bit.

We do get people to the Grand Canyon by the millions, and it's impossible to argue otherwise. Helicopter and fixed-wing scenic flyovers, motorized rafts, burro transport, an expansive network of paved roads and walkways to countless spectacular overlooks and amazing views, all connected now (on the south rim, anyway) by an efficient bus system. Yes, Yos Valley is a tourist area, and so is most of the south rim of Grand Canyon and a chunk of the north rim. And I'm okay with all of it (minus the outboard motors on rafts perhaps), for the reason you state. But we've already compromised some of the wild places of these parks (to say the least) and made the places accessible to ALL. The result? For millions and millions every year, Grand Canyon was an incredible, unforgettable must-see, and millions upon millions more have a trip to Grand Canyon (as it is now) high on their bucket lists. Ditto for Yosemite, of course. Clearly we've done enough to allow anyone and everyone to experience these places for themselves. And I think most everyone on this forum can and does live with the compromises made to allow that kind of access, whether we're talking about GC or Yos. And those outside this forum, and/or those unable or unwilling to climb or hike? They can't wait for their first visit or their next visit, and with very, very few exceptions they all love these places, feel connected to them, and would (and do) oppose development beyond already-developed areas. If this wasn't true there'd be a hotel atop El Cap with a glass elevator up the Nose providing access from the valley.

To argue that we're excluding people from, and thus eroding support for, the remaining wilderness portions of Grand Canyon is as ridiculous as believing a gondola from rim to river at the confluence delivers them that wilderness. Which, by the way, is exactly like saying a glass elevator up the Nose would deliver them a climbing experience.

Spider, you can't be serious? The confluence is about as wild as you can get, camping is not even allowed at the actual confluence. Now we want wheelchair access? Seems like a pipe dream to me, the Navajo Nation boundary only goes to the edge of the canyon. The asinine Skywalk got built because the Havasupia Nation boundary includes actual canyon.

I am all for access but there needs to be limits. Any area that has access to the multitudes is going to get ruined, it really will. I hiked out of the Grand Canyon last week and the picture posted below was less than half a mile from the trail-head at the popular Grandview tourist viewpoint. We do not need Jaquelyn Marshall in the inner gorge, keep her at the top.

Thanks for the replies and interest. Times have changed in the last 50 years, we no longer have to get people into wilderness to have them appreciate wild places. Those days are gone with the internet. Here's a follow up article on the last post as to what may happen if we let wilderness become accessible to all:

North Carolina Man Reportedly Thought it Would Be "Cool" To Carve His Name On Rock Art Panel At Glen Canyon NRA

This is already a protected area in which there are many ways to enjoy for the near 5 million persons a year who visit. I used to believe the way to protect wild places was to get people into them but no longer subscribe to this tenant.

Yet for several decades following the flooding of Glen Canyon the environmental movement urged how important it was to get people into wild places in order that they can understand and protect these areas. Those days are long gone.

I don't know about how much of an economic benefit it would be, or to how many. I'd like to find out how that new "skywalk" attraction is doing.
I'm living out here and I drive back and forth to Flagstaff all the time. I see a lot of signs opposing the development between Cameron and Tuba City. I can't recall seeing any in favor. The Navajo are by no means of one mind on this issue.

Yet for several decades following the flooding of Glen Canyon the environmental movement urged how important it was to get people into wild places in order that they can understand and protect these areas. Those days are long gone.

Albatross,

I know what you mean, and I'm with you, but in truth those days never existed. What the conservation/environmental
movement(s) actually proved (and not just the Brower-era version) was that it's really not at all about getting people into the wilderness it's simply about educating them on the beauty and value of that wilderness. That, in the end, is the only way to save it. Yes, Muir and Brower and countless others of their stature encouraged people to come see and experience the wild places for themselves. Few did, few ever have. Put on a backpack and pull one high pass into the Sierra Nevada (staying off the relative highways like Whitney, Muir, etc.) and how many people do you see? If you want the answer to be none it's not hard to do, yet few do it.

The great success of our National Park system is education. Say what you will about crowds in Yosemite Valley or on the south rim, and their impact, but when people leave those full-access-for-all portals most leave with an appreciation of the entire park. They leave as supporters of preserving the entire park as it is, and often other wild places as well. They're with us even if they never hoist a backpack and head off-road.

It's always been about education and it always will be. Which is what you're doing in this thread. Thank you!

So take your kids back-packing and have them invite along a friend who has never done it. Then do up a trip photo book for the kid and I guarantee you that kid will proudly show it to everyone they know. You'll also win over the parents and who knows how many others, and move the pro-wilderness needle just a bit more to the right. You can be a one-man version of what the old Sierra Club did with their coffee table books back in Brower's time.

A great website about the trails of the Grand Canyon... Zoomed in to the junction of the Tanner, Beamer, and Escalante route.. http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/usgs_map.php?map=dv&seg=bb Personally, I have only been on the Bright Angel and Grandview trails. Sure would like to try some of the more hardcore routes!

Navajo President Ben Shelly said a proposed resort on the Grand Canyon east rim “is not going to happen” Thursday night at a fund-raiser event in Tuba City.

Shelly, who has not officially announced a re-election bid for Navajo president, had met with people during a $30- per- plate dinner at the Hogan Restaurant. The president spoke about the Grand Canyon Escalade, which was part of three topics he mentioned.

Shelly, who spoke in the Navajo Language, said the Escalade won’t happen because it will launch lawsuits. The president did not say who would sue or state the reasons for the lawsuits.

Though the President’s office has not issued an official statement about Thursday’s development, he privately encouraged Escalade opponents to work on preserving the area. He also said to mark off areas the group did not want developed.

Revisit Save the Confluence later for witness accounts, a recording of Shelly’s talk and photos.

$76 to sashay out on that stupid-a$$ skywalk?! Who pays that unless they're at gunpoint? Anyone who's spent any time at all hiking to and around north and south rim overlooks (easily accessible by car or bus I must add) has stood atop more exposed perches with far better canyon views for free. Economically speaking--my revulsion for the skywalk completely aside--I don't get it! No wonder the gondola idea isn't taking wing (knock wood).

hahaha, I hate to admit it but me and my little boy were in the first group to go on the Skywalk when they opened to the public. My son was only 4 so he did not get charged. It was an interesting day, but you are right, the skywalk is a waste of money. It is not over the river and it was almost more interesting on the cliffs next to the skywalk. No railings anywhere, classic rez tourist development.

Jon, you are an honest man to admit it! And I bet that whole day is already a darn good story that will only get better with age...and possibly an after-hours seismic event that drops the skywalk into the void.

And the only thing good about the skywalk is that it isn't over the river.

Hey, how old is your little boy now? Old enough for some good hiking trips, I'm guessing.

My boy is 11, will take his first backpacking trip this summer, it will not be into the Grand Canyon! Sierra trout fishing trip is planned, any suggestions on an easy hike in with good fishing?

Latest news on the Escalade project is full speed ahead, although it seems I read somewhere that money is not available. This article is loaded with information about the plan to run a 1.6 mile long aerial gondola line down to the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado rivers. I have mixed feelings on it, that area of the rez is impoverished even by rez standards. Tourism is much preferred over coal. They would only use 3 acres at the river, but is is an extremely remote area, I am troubled by that aspect of it.